The KSRA is proud to support several pieces of legislation which have been introduced this session. These bills are also supported by the NRA. If you would like to follow the progress of these bills be sure to opt-in to our email alerts! See the “Join Our Mailing List” box to subscribe.

Most notable is the Constitutional Carry bill, SB 45. This is a bill that recognizes Kansans’ freedom to carry a concealed handgun as enshrined in Article IV of the Kansas Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural, unalienable right protected by the Second Amendment and citizens should not have to go through burdensome and expensive hoops to exercise that right. In Kansas, it is already legal to carry a firearm openly, as long as the individual is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. However, under current law, if a firearm becomes covered by a coat or if a woman prefers to carry a firearm for self-protection in her purse, one would need to possess a concealed carry permit. This Constitutional Carry legislation gives Kansans the freedom to choose the best method of carrying for them, based on their attire, gender and/or physical attributes. You may see the answer to many questions contained in the FAQ we have created for your convenience.
This bill was authored by Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce and is co-sponsored by 26 Senators.

A Kansas House Concurrent Resolution to amend the Constitution of the State of Kansas has been introduced by Rep. Travis Couture-Lovelady in the KS House of Representatives. HCR 5008 is designed to protect the right to Hunt, Fish and Trap in Kansas. If this resolution passes both chambers of the Kansas legislature then it will be placed on the general election ballot in November 2016 for the voters to decide if it should be codified in the Kansas Constitution. It will require two thirds of the voters voting yes to adopt this resolution. This amendment is to preserve constitutionally the right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife subject to reasonable laws and regulations. The right of the public to hunt, fish and trap shall not modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain or any other private property rights.

The exact verbiage that will be codified in the Kansas Constitution, should it pass, is:
"The people have the right to hunt, fish and trap, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws and regulations that promote wildlife conservation and management and that preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This section shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights or water resources."

There are two more bills which are cleanup measures from last year’s legislation. This is common and each year we evaluate the codified laws and determine if anything was misinterpreted or any unintended consequences were created and check for any conflict in other existing laws. The two cleanup bills that address those minor issues this year are HB 2074 and HB 2087. We’ll send out more detailed information in our regular email alerts.

Senator Forrest Knox has authored two measures that will likely be worked either later during the 2015 session or during the 2016 session. First is SB 65 which is designed to ensure that public employee’s (city, county, state, municipal) are able to exercise their right to carry while on the job even if driving a municipal owned vehicles. The second measure is SB 66 which addresses an Attorney General Opinion issued in 2013 saying that you could not post just a portion of a public building. There are cases where concealed carry is not allowed where it should be because of that ruling. Keep in mind that public buildings are defined as buildings operated by cities, counties and the state. They are not private businesses. These bills have no effect on private buildings/businesses.

One last bill to mention is NOT supported by the KSRA or the NRA and in fact we strongly oppose it. SB 25 was introduced by Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau at the behest of the Brady Campaign and has provisions that would require a background check on private sales outside of the immediate family. It is being met with enormous opposition. It is already a federal felony to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to anyone not allowed to purchase or possess a firearm for any reason. No additional laws will stop crime. This is nothing more than a misguided and diabolical proposal that has nothing whatsoever to do with curbing criminal violence but has everything to do with stripping us of our guaranteed civil rights and liberty protected by the Second Amendment.

KSRA FILES AS AMICI CURIAE INHENDERSON v. UNITED STATES

The Kansas State Rifle Association along with 3 other State Firearms Associations have filed as Amici Curiae in support of Tony Henderson in the case of Henderson v. United States. This lawsuit challenges an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to disallow Mr. Henderson to sell or transfer his lawfully owned, non-contraband firearms to an appropriate third party.

In this case, the Eleventh Circuit held that the government cannot transfer or sell a firearm on behalf of a person that has recently become prohibited from possessing firearms. The court’s decision was based, in large part, upon a concern that doing so would deliver “constructive possession of a firearm to a convicted felon” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). United States v. Henderson, 555 Fed. App’x 851, 853 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Howell, 425 F.3d 971, 977 (11th Cir. 2005)). This holding was in error. Although the court did not articulate why permitting the transfer would amount to constructive possession, it is well settled that such possession requires a finding that the individual intends to control the firearms. Because there is no evidence that Mr. Henderson would retain any control over the firearms if they are transferred to an appropriate third party, the court erred in concluding that the government is foreclosed from transferring them on his behalf.

Although it is certainly true that a convicted felon would retain constructive possession over a firearm if it were transferred to someone willing to accept the felon’s instructions as to the disposition of the firearm, see United States v. Miller, 588 F.3d 418, 419 (7th Cir. 2009), courts have never found a convicted felon to be in constructive possession simply because there is a risk that he or she could potentially exert control over it. To the contrary, courts have routinely found that constructive possession does not exist absent any evidence that the defendant knowingly and intentionally exerted dominion and control over the firearm, even in cases where there is a risk that a person could access or control it.

In sum, it makes little sense to require a convicted felon to retain ownership over firearms he has voluntarily sought to divest himself of outright. Authorizing the proper transfer of firearms to non-prohibited third parties will promote the Act’s goal of foreclosing firearm ownership by prohibited persons, while simultaneously promoting compliance and judicial economy.

Here is a list of the State Associations that have filed as Amici Curiae:
California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, Calguns Shooting Sports Association, and Kansas State Rifle Association

(An Amici Curiae is someone who is not a party to a case, who offers information that bears on the case but who has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist a court. It is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case.)

***URGENT ALERT KANSAS GUN OWNERS***

Kansas Gun Owners, the Brady Campaign has opened an office in Kansas and intends to lobby the Kansas Legislature for gun control measures. The 2015 session of the Kansas Legislature convenes January 12th. This will be the first time that Brady has directly targeted Kansas with their attacks on gun rights. They are in cahoots with Mom’s Demand Action, Bloomberg and have millions of dollars at their disposal to spend on anti-Second Amendment campaigns to influence legislators and citizens. These insidious people have been working hard for several months to capture the support of churches and school administrators. They are making progress.

NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO BE COMPLACENT! While we have made great strides in Kansas, we will now find our job much more difficult. It is imperative that gun owners in Kansas stand united and we need your support. If you are not a member of the KSRA, please join today! There is strength in numbers! We MUST show we are an unstoppable force to be reckoned with. If you are already a member, please consider a donation to the KSRA general fund in any amount you can afford so that we have the resources necessary to battle these anti-gun groups who wish to strip you of your rights.

Folks, please, this is not fear mongering for money and memberships. This is a serious plea because we have a fight on our hands and it takes numbers and money to win a battle such as this. If you value your gun rights, and I think you do, then please do all you can to support our effort to fight these gun grabbing monsters who prefer to make you all defenseless victims. Kansas has a target on its back. Let’s make sure we are prepared to show Brady the door out of Kansas!

The President's Corner January – March 2015

Greetings Fellow KSRA Members!

Happy New Year! I hope everyone enjoyed lots of time with family and friends during the wonderful Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season.

Entering into 2015 we have important work to do in Kansas! Although we have made some great headway with pro-Second Amendment legislation in the last eight years we still have lots of important work to do! I believe we can get a number of outstanding measures passed during the 2015 session and I’ve been busy successfully seeking sponsors for those initiatives. If there was ever a time for us to be aggressive in our agenda, now is the time. If you want to stay informed as we move through this legislative session, be sure you are opted-in to our email distribution list. Often times we put out a call to our members to contact their legislators to help push bills over the finish line so please do subscribe so you get those alerts! Legislators need to hear from you so they know it’s an issue important to Kansas gun owners.

During the elections this past year we enjoyed outstanding success helping pro-Second Amendment legislators and state officers get elected in Kansas We now enjoy both Senate and House Leadership in Kansas that are all highly rated on pro-Second Amendment issues and that also trickles down to Committee Chairs being appointed that are favorable as well.

We face new opposition in Kansas this year. The Brady Campaign has set up shop in Kansas and plans to introduce unfavorable legislation with the help of a handful of anti-Second Amendment legislators. They have also been lobbying school boards and school administrators espousing their lies. While I don’t expect them to have success it still means we must fight their effort and work harder and longer hours to ensure they are not successful. We really need the support of all gun owners in Kansas and hope you will engage in financially supporting KSRA with both your membership and your additional donations. And please spread the word and encourage your family, friends and neighbors to join and be part of the resistance to their unconstitutional desires! I can’t remind everyone often enough that there really is power in numbers!!

KSRA FILES AS AMICI CURIAE IN KOLBE v. O’MALLEY

The Kansas State Rifle Association along with 13 other State Firearms Associations have filed as Amici Curiae in support of Kolbe in the case of Kolbe v. O’Malley. This lawsuit challenges Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons” and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and is being filed in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Rather than target the unlawful acquisition and use of certain arms, Maryland has banned them from all law-abiding citizens. At the State’s urging, the district court improperly held that the government may strip law-abiding citizens of their rights to access and use constitutionally protected arms in their homes in an attempt to curb the unlawful use of those items by a small segment of society. This reasoning lies in direct conflict with controlling Supreme Court precedent that makes clear that removing dangerous, but commonly chosen, arms from all law-abiding citizens lacks the required fit with the government’s public safety interests under both intermediate and strict scrutiny.

In this case the district court erred by finding that the government may ban constitutionally protected arms from all law-abiding citizens to reduce criminal access and misuse. They also erred in finding that the state’s evidence could establish the required fit between the challenged laws and the state’s public safety interests.

To ban protected arms because certain members of society might misuse them is to tell law-abiding citizens that their liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the lawless minority who abuse those liberties—a perverse message indeed.

The notion that the government may flatly ban constitutionally protected activity on the grounds that it could lead to abuses has been squarely rejected in other contexts, and it should be rejected here.

The Court should reverse the judgment to restore the rights of Maryland residents to access and use exceedingly common rifles and magazines for lawful purposes.

(An Amici Curiae is someone who is not a party to a case, who offers information that bears on the case but who has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist a court. It is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case.)

KSRA FILES AS AMICI CURIAE INCOLORADO OUTFITTERS V. HICKENLOOPER

The Kansas State Rifle Association along with 13 other State Firearms Associations have filed as Amici Curiae in support of Colorado Outfitters in the case of Colorado Outfitters v. Hickenlooper. This lawsuit challenges Colorado’s ban on firearms magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and is being filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In reaching its decision, the district court acknowledged that magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, and firearms equipped with them, are in common use for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. As a result, the court found the possession and use of these arms to be conduct protected by the Second Amendment. But it then concluded that Colorado’s decision to completely ban this
protected conduct by prohibiting all law-abiding individuals from purchasing and possessing the magazines in their homes does not violate the Second Amendment. These findings are fundamentally incompatible.

Because Colorado’s complete ban on protected conduct will necessarily fail any level of heightened scrutiny, this court need not select a standard of review to declare it categorically invalid. Should the Court be inclined to apply a level of heightened means-end scrutiny, however, amici write to respectfully direct the Court’s attention to two errors committed by the district court.

First, the district court failed to recognize that laws banning conduct at the core of a fundamental right necessarily impose severe burdens prompting strict scrutiny. And it further erred by failing to require the government to establish that its magazine restriction is narrowly tailored to its interest in keeping the magazines from perpetrators of violent crime.

This Court should correct these errors and reverse the decision.

The Court should clarify that under the prevailing two-step approach for Second Amendment challenges, direct restrictions on core conduct necessarily impose burdens warranting strict scrutiny.

Regardless, the Court should declare Colorado’s ban unconstitutional because laws flatly prohibiting the possession of protected arms by all law-abiding citizens lack the required fit with an interest in preventing access by perpetrators of violent crime under either strict or intermediate scrutiny.

For these reasons, Amici ask the Court to reverse the judgment of the district court.

(An Amici Curiae is someone who is not a party to a case, who offers information that bears on the case but who has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist a court. It is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case.)